If the image is smaller in resolution you don't upload it. Yes, some users do re-size bad quality images and that's a bad idea. Patience is needed. We can't fix all posters at once. Hopefully one day a good quality poster will appear for the movie you want to fix now.

If you find bad quality images - either re-sized or just too small - feel free to report them.

Feel free to wait for a good quality poster for small movies like "Freinds & Crocodiles" that I just add. Your databese is going to be full of blanks. I scanned the dvd cover, but still, it's not a good source (a smaller resolution image from the internet is probably better in quality, even zoomed). There simply is never going to be one. Also there will never be a good backdrop either. The DVD is 480p (actually I think it's 480i), I highly doubt a bluray is coming. The internet has no pictures or promotional pictures of the movie that is in a higher resolution, except for scanned magazine articles...

That's just one example. There is hundreds of them. I understand the standards is good to mantain a high quality of content, but it's not possible for a lot of movies.

And I asked it because I see a lot of movies with smaller resolution posters and backdrops. How were they added in the first place anyway? In my opinion, they're still better than nothing, at least until someone find something better.

The enforced minimum resolution was added a couple of months ago (if I remember correctly). Before that there was a suggested minimum resolution (width:666) but it was still possible to upload smaller covers.

I can absolutely understand your concern, but from a moderation perspective I'm still going to remove all re-sized bad quality images that I come across.

Maybe Travis has something to add from his perspective?

I've imagined that it was a recent thing. I do understand your position as well. Just wanted to give my opinion about the issue. I think improvement is better than removal or restriction. A system were an user could upload a better picture, and flag a similar smaller one, would be better.

But well, anyway it's a great site. Let's hope this rule is for the best.

Edit: Also, resizing is a horrible thing, and that is my point. A image that says is 1280x720 buy it's actually zoomed from a smaller source is not only bad in quality, but misleading. And by restricting the upload, for some movies, some users might think they have no other option. Wouldn't it be better to have the small resolution one? And easier to spot them and improve them.

I agree completely with Botering. I'm brand new to the site and there were a number of DVDs that didn't have entries. I added an entry for Bill Maher: New Rules, but could not get any images to load because they didn't meet the minimum requirements. I tried about 20 images and then gave up in frustration. I would prefer a lower quality image to a blank one, but I also understand the desire to maintain a standard. But wouldn't it be better to allow the lower quality photo, but mark it so that someone can substitute a higher quality image, IF and when it's available. i'm skeptical that given the age of the Maher video whether such an image will ever be there.

In any case, like Botering, it is hard to criticize such a great site. Keep up the good work.

Hey guys,

I am sympathetic to the issue here but unfortunately, without the validations we end up with a lot more work. What ends up happening is that many, many, many movies end up getting nothing but quite bad images added (say ~200px) when a proper does exist. What a lot of more, shall we say, "novice" users do is just open Google, search, find the first one and upload. All we end up doing is making work for ourselves.

You can kind of in a way, think of this as more of a "pro" feature. Either you got the skills to understand what all of this means,source proper images, crop/edit in Photoshop, etc... or you don't upload images. I don't like saying that it needs to be that black and white but to get quality content I don't see much other way.

Having said that, there 2 different types of images. Posters and backdrops. Backdrops have had the size validation for quite a while, 3 years maybe. While posters recently got the validation added (~9 months ago).

There are some movies that no matter the source we find, may never meet our guidelines. I think this is the real issue. It's not so much about removing the validations but about perhaps having a system in place where images can still be contributed if there really isn't a better source.

Does this make sense? Not sure if I rambled a bit too much there...

I understand where you are coming from. I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm one of those novices who just went to Google for an image. I guess that having a few holes is worth the professional quality that the site has achieved. I get it. Would still like yo fill the holes, but I understand.

@Travis Bell I understand as well. But how would you make a system where images can still be contributed if there really isn't a better source? I was thinking about that... maybe when adding a movie, a check box for "Is this a rare, hard to find movie?", and if it was marked, the validation for posters and backdrops could change for a more loose one? What do you think?

Hello everyone. I'm new and I want to contribute as fully as possible. Now I have and I need to know how to upload images for movies that are not in the base and have no covers. I can not visualize where the link or the place where you can upload the images I mentioned. Someone be so kind as to tell me where and how I can upload them. Already completed all data missing from the movie, in this case it comes to Rififi in Tokyo. I just need the cover. Thank you all.

masterchipo, It looks like you found out how to do it.

Yes I did so and went well. But now I have problems with another film: Q & A. I edited the director, who is Sidnye Lumet, Alan Smithee was wrong, and deleted from the base.The title in Spanish (my language) is Distrito 34: corrupción total http://www.filmaffinity.com/es/film883796.html Help me please and thanks

I noticed that you changed the movie to adult:true. That should only be used for adult movies (porn). I changed it back.

What exactly is the problem here for you? Apart from the adult:true issue it all looks OK.

EDIT: Link about Alan Smithee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee

Thanks i fixed the movie data four your help. Thanks a lot